These three appeals viz Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. l of 1990, Govt. Criminal Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 1990 were heard together as the paints involved are the same. By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of the above three appeals.

2. Facts of Criminal (Jail) Appeal No 1 of 1990 :- On 14.2.86 the Superintendent of Police, Border Affairs (PW4) along with the Sub-Inspector of Police of the Department (PW5) were at Moreh for checking and handling of drug traffickers. They did so on getting reliable information. The party included also constable PW1 and PW-, and Official of Narcotic Sections of Manipur Police Department and on way they came across with the accused Jainulabdin @ Nahainacha in a suspicious manner and after getting down from their vehicle the body of the accused was searched by PW5, the Sub-Inspector of Police. A plastic packet suspected to be No.4 heroin powder was found and on measurement by PW3, a local Goldsmith, the weight was found to be of 15 grams. The heroin was seized by preparing a formal seizure list Ext. P/l and PWs 1,2 and 3 were witnessess to the seizure. Thereafter accused along with the heroin powder was taken under arrest to the Inspection Bunglow, Moreh for interrogation. On instruction from the Superintendent of Police, Border Affairs (PW4), the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW ^) lodged the F.I.R. Ext. P/2 and the accused was also handed over to Officer-in-charge of Moreh Police Station. The plastic packet containing heroin was re-seized. Thereafter, Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet.

The learned Sessions Judge, Imphal accepted the prosecution story. The learned trial Court also took into consideration the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. P/6 that the' packet contained heroin. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the defence plea that both the Superintendent of Police (PW4) and the Sub Inspector of Police (PWS) had no power to seize the heroin under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropie Substances Act, 1985 for short the Act, inasmuch as, these officers were not authorised under provisions of sections 41} 42 and 53, holding, inter alia, that the Act is not a complete Code and when the provisions of the Act are not inconsistent to the provisions , of Cr. P C seizure, search and arrest can be made under the provisions of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge also took into consideration section 43 of the Act and came to the finding that these Police Officers had power to arrest the accused and searched him under section 43 of ths Act

3. Facts of Govt. Criminal Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 1990:- According to prosecution the occurrence took place on the same day i.e 14.2.86 and at the same place i.e. Moreh. Two accused persons in the above two Sessions Cases viz Sheivam Madraji and Sirajuddin were found moving in suspicious manner at 1 P.M. and 11-10 A.M. respectively and they were arrested by the same Sub-Inspector a .d after search of their body 30 grams of No.4 heroin powder and 50 grams of No.4 heroin powder in two plastic packets were recovered from the above two persons respectively. The said Sub-Inspector filed the F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge, Moreh Police Station and after investigation charge-sheet were submitted under section 2i of the Act. Both the cases were tried separately, but by the common judgment and order, learned Additional Sessions Judge No. l, Imphal acquitted both the accused persons on technical ground. The learned trial Court held that the Sub-Inspector of Police was not a duly authorised Police Officer under section 42 (1) of the Act, as the notification by the State Government was issued subsequent to the date of occurrence and such notification with retrospective effect is not tenable in law. The learned trial Court also rejected the contention that under section 42 of the Act officers mentioned in the said section has power to arrest, search and seize in a public place under section 43 of the Act even if they are not duly authorise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document